Vint Cerf, co-creator of the Internet, said today he is troubled by the prospect of companies like AT&T avoiding government regulation after the transition from traditional phone technology to all-IP networks. Already, he said, competition was decimated when the Internet moved from dial-up providers to cable companies and telcos.

Cerf—who made the Internet possible by co-developing the Internet protocol and Transmission Control Protocol technology 40 years ago—was speaking at the Consumer Electronics Show's "Silvers Summit" on technology geared toward the older population. "Some people think silver surfers don't know how to use technology. I have news for you: some of us invented this stuff," the 69-year-old Cerf noted.

Who better to weigh in on that topic than Vint Cerf? He took questions after his talk, and I got the chance to ask Cerf to address AT&T's plan and comment on whether he thinks extensive regulation of all-IP telcos is necessary. Here's what he said:

I'm not allowed to use foul language, right?

My first observation is that it is vital that we maintain openness and neutral access to the Internet's capabilities… The fact that you can carry voice over the Internet is almost incidental to the fact that you can carry any digital content over the Internet. I would not wish to see the question of regulation turn on the notion that Voice over IP is PSTN or is a replacement for PSTN. It is a replacement for almost everything we can do, all of the old network functions can be done on the Internet.

Cerf went on to say network neutrality is important, that we must preserve the right of Internet users to choose what applications and websites they are able to access:

If no regulation leads to your loss of choice of access to applications and content, then that is not an acceptable outcome. If that's what the telcos are trying to accomplish, I am opposed. If all they're trying to accomplish is to make sure the Internet stays as widely open as possible, and they are willing to provide competitive access and give us choice, that's another story.

I have to tell you that in the 1990s there were 7 or 8,000 Internet service providers because the Internet was provided through dial-up. If you wanted to switch you just changed the telephone number you call. When broadband came along the number of choices you had telescoped down to one or two: either a telco or cable company or both, and so competition evaporated. There isn't enough of it. Getting access to competition to discipline the market and give you choice is still an important consideration.

Is Google regulated enough?

Cerf is the "chief Internet evangelist" at Google, which recently avoided an antitrust lawsuit when the Federal Trade Commission decided not to bring charges over the company's search practices. One audience member asked Cerf what kind of regulation is necessary to protect consumers from predatory practices on the Internet, and from companies favoring certain kinds of content over others. The audience member mentioned that the question is relevant to Google, Cerf's employer.

Cerf answered, "With regard to the regulatory practices, what I am after more than anything else is to inhibit anti-competitive behavior. It's necessary to make sure that people who control underlying resources don't do so in such a way as to distort the market. If there is a distortion—and you have to demonstrate that if you want to take regulatory action—then... you need to do something about it to maintain choice for everyone and make sure the market is open for competition."

In a related question, Cerf said that businesses providing products and services on the Internet should be required to make everything accessible to people with disabilities.

Upgrading our brains: It won't always be science fiction

Still another question for Cerf centered on whether we will someday be able to "upgrade" our brains. Cerf noted that Google recently hired Ray Kurzweil, the futurist who believes humans and machines will someday become inseparable in ways that will enhance our brains and bodies and perhaps help us live forever.

"Ray is a real futurist," Cerf said. "His belief is that some point perhaps as early as 2029, that machines will be sufficiently capable that they would be smarter than a human, and that at some point we may be able to upload ourselves into a computer."

As for whether we can upgrade ourselves, Cerf said, "You have to question how does the upgrade work. If you assume our wetware is like a machine, and it is if you look at the chemistry, the question is how does the upgrade actually get injected."

This may involve DNA implanted into our brains and bodies to change their functionality. 'We're off into science fiction land right now," he said.

Yet it may not be science fiction in a few decades. Earlier in his talk Cerf had related the story of his wife, who lost her hearing at the age of 3 only to regain it in 1996 with a cochlear implant, a surgically implanted electronic device that restores the ability to hear.

"The cochlear implant I mentioned earlier would have been science fiction 30 years ago," he said. "And it isn't anymore. So it's entirely possible that we can grow ourselves new capabilities and I would not be surprised if that happens."

54 Reader Comments

The man deserves a medal for telling it like it is. We need more competition, not less....then again, I wonder how many of us would fold like cards if Google Fiber were to show up at your doorstep tomorrow?

The man deserves a medal for telling it like it is. We need more competition, not less....then again, I wonder how many of us would fold like cards if Google Fiber were to show up at your doorstep tomorrow?

Considering Google Fiber would be an introduction of competition, I'd jump on it immediately. It would then be up to other companies to win me back. Or fold, and then we re-visit the issue in 10 years when everyone is getting their info from Google pipes.

God yes, it's amazing how many people accept Cochlear implants without thinking about it but freak out about similar "cybernetics." Of course it helps that the Cochlear implant allows for a serious improvement in quality of life in our fairly audio-based society. I assume the first mass-availability of cures for blindness will be met with similar joy and only later will people realize how much of this potentially allows direct computer interfaces for users.

The man deserves a medal for telling it like it is. We need more competition, not less....then again, I wonder how many of us would fold like cards if Google Fiber were to show up at your doorstep tomorrow?

Considering Google Fiber would be an introduction of competition, I'd jump on it immediately. It would then be up to other companies to win me back. Or fold, and then we re-visit the issue in 10 years when everyone is getting their info from Google pipes.

It's the same problem though. Probably zero choice of ISP on your Google Fiber line. You should have at least a couple decent choices (and a bunch of really terrible ones).

As I recall, in the golden age of dial up ISP competition, there were like 3 ISPs that weren't completely awful. I was pretty young, but I don't remember it being all that great...

A good solution would be to separate the pipes from the internet providers...Like how the old phone lines work at the moment.

Can you expand on that? If I buy DSL from AT&T, I'm using their copper to get to their CO where I enter their IP newtork, and only exit it if what I'm looking for isn't on their network. It's the same way if I make a telephone call. I'm not sure how they're separate.

As I recall, in the golden age of dial up ISP competition, there were like 3 ISPs that weren't completely awful. I was pretty young, but I don't remember it being all that great...

Never lived anywhere (and I lived in some pretty small communities when dial up was at it's height) where there weren't at least 3 decent local ISPs competing for my business in addition to the 3 or so national providers. I'd love to have 3 options for broadband access vs. the one I've currently had for the last 10 years. And you would expect in 10 years for more options to spring up, but extremely capped overpriced satellite and extremely capped overpriced "4G" wireless are about the only options I have other than my cable ISP.

A good solution would be to separate the pipes from the internet providers...Like how the old phone lines work at the moment.

Can you expand on that? If I buy DSL from AT&T, I'm using their copper to get to their CO where I enter their IP newtork, and only exit it if what I'm looking for isn't on their network. It's the same way if I make a telephone call. I'm not sure how they're separate.

Because you can buy local land-line service from multiple providers, even though it's all going across AT&T's (or whoever) physical network. IOW, the physical distribution network is separate from the logical service provider.

What we really need to do, is separate the distribution network from the content providers.

A good solution would be to separate the pipes from the internet providers...Like how the old phone lines work at the moment.

Can you expand on that? If I buy DSL from AT&T, I'm using their copper to get to their CO where I enter their IP newtork, and only exit it if what I'm looking for isn't on their network. It's the same way if I make a telephone call. I'm not sure how they're separate.

In fact DSL is regulated like telephones. AT&T is forced to lease the lines to competitors for a fair market price. Those rules are in place because the government paid for a lot of those phone lines. If you don't like AT&T then you can switch to someone like Speakeasy instead. The downside is that DSL is inherently limited by the nature of the phone lines it goes over, and will fall further and further behind as time goes on.

That's a big reason Verizon and AT&T pushed fiber optic networks so heavily. Not only do they avoid the inherent limitations of copper phone lines, but they're not regulated like phones and they don't have to compete if they don't want to. Guess how many ISPs Verizon and AT&T have allowed to lease their fiber lines. This is how they are both able to charge sky high prices for fiber optic service, they don't have competitors to worry about. Cable systems were in that seat from day 1. While cable networks are also somewhat limited due to the underlying technology, they have a lot more overhead than DSL and they own the lines just as much as Verizon and AT&T do and don't have to share.

So even Vint Cerf doesn't know what defines true network neutrality? *sigh* I guess I'll keep repeating myself like a broken record in the hope that an actual decision-maker will get a clue and figure it out:

Network neutrality = public ownership of the infrastructure

No, NOT a boatload of laws and regulation that attempts in vain to corral and control the private self-centered monarchies and fiefdoms that we have allowed to dictate terms to the world.

At least Australia has seen the light and will have a new network owned by the people. The United States isn't so enlightened.

A good solution would be to separate the pipes from the internet providers...Like how the old phone lines work at the moment.

Can you expand on that? If I buy DSL from AT&T, I'm using their copper to get to their CO where I enter their IP newtork, and only exit it if what I'm looking for isn't on their network. It's the same way if I make a telephone call. I'm not sure how they're separate.

It's actually fairly simple, and widely practiced in Europe. Here in Denmark, we have our own equivalent to AT&T, as TDC own the central as well as all the pipes. However, we also have mandated line-sharing at government-regulated (minimum) prices as well as an obligation for them to lease out space in the central to competitors. The end result is that although TDC remain the dominant provider, they can't price gauge consumers without risking them switching to a much cheaper, but largely equivalent, alternative. It's essentially the same as regulations allowing MVNOs to operate on all mobile networks: The ones owning the infrastructure can't refuse leasing it out.

A good solution would be to separate the pipes from the internet providers...Like how the old phone lines work at the moment.

Don't know how it works in the US, but in Canada, the major Telcos own certain TV channels. You get ridiculous internet caps for home use (15 Gigs for a home internet connection is super low for a family) and throttled speeds during the day.

I would be all for their argument "Canada is too spread out so the cost of internet has to be higher than other countries", except that you DO NOT get throttled or capped if you stream content for the TV channels they own..... I hope this model does not get copied in the US.....

There is zero chance of the US government buying up network infrastructure now. They missed their chance to partner with Verizon and AT&T to help build out more fiber to the house and set up a system similar to the one used for POTS that would have insured competition. In fact I doubt either company would have gone along with that, since one of the big driving forces behind the fiber rollouts was to finally get out from under the telco regulations that made it impossible to charge monopoly prices.

Frequently, when suggesting improvement, it helps to assume reality. That reality is that the expenses involved in either expropriating or building infrastructure make this a dead end. Private initiative works well in these circumstances, and regulation works reasonably well for keeping it in check.

Frequently, when suggesting improvement, it helps to assume reality. That reality is that the expenses involved in either expropriating or building infrastructure make this a dead end. Private initiative works well in these circumstances, and regulation works reasonably well for keeping it in check.

While I'm not disputing what you said, they have more than enough money to do this. We just have to get off our asses and vote out the morons that are for big business bailouts, illegal and unjust wars, and giving other sovereign nations billions to prop up our "influence" in regions we have no business meddling in. We'd have money coming out our ears, and we'd have enough money for this and things like healthcare. You know, stuff we need, not more useless billion dollar war planes and defense contracts to bomb people that are literally no threat to us.

A good solution would be to separate the pipes from the internet providers...Like how the old phone lines work at the moment.

I wonder how this would play out in reality. Would different ISPs actually differentiate or would they all offer basically the same plans? How would the price of the pipe be determined? What if it was $50/month for the pipe plus more for the actual Internet access? What if the pipe owner instituted caps or other controls?

A good solution would be to separate the pipes from the internet providers...Like how the old phone lines work at the moment.

Can you expand on that? If I buy DSL from AT&T, I'm using their copper to get to their CO where I enter their IP newtork, and only exit it if what I'm looking for isn't on their network. It's the same way if I make a telephone call. I'm not sure how they're separate.

The most common way would be for the local government to supply the last-mile connections to the end users and let ISPs have a single connection at some exchange.

Another way would require an ISP to break up it's business into two separate entities, one that supplies last mile access and another that supplies internet access.

Also you get issues like where the cable company reserves 90% of its bandwidth for TV channels that aren't being watched, but then cries when people say that they're not trying hard enough to upgrade their networks bandwidth.

They artificially limit their network's resources then use the lack of resources as evidence that it's too expensive to meet user demand.

Frequently, when suggesting improvement, it helps to assume reality. That reality is that the expenses involved in either expropriating or building infrastructure make this a dead end. Private initiative works well in these circumstances, and regulation works reasonably well for keeping it in check.

What serious expenses are involved in expropriating? Just follow Venezuela's lead with their oil industry, nationalize it. BAM, instant public ownership of the infrastructure! *dusts off hands*

...Don't know how it works in the US, but in Canada, the major Telcos own certain TV channels. You get ridiculous internet caps for home use (15 Gigs for a home internet connection is super low for a family) and throttled speeds during the day.

I would be all for their argument "Canada is too spread out so the cost of internet has to be higher than other countries", except that you DO NOT get throttled or capped if you stream content for the TV channels they own..... I hope this model does not get copied in the US.....

You make an excellent point. Your forthrightness and honesty is much appreciated. The only standard that many outspoken (boorish) US Internet critics subscribe to--who generally always live in the US, btw--is the standard of a perfect Internet utopia. They constantly fantasize that somewhere else on earth (though they argue among themselves as to where, precisely) the perfect Internet utopia exists. They find fault with the wired Internet service they get in the US because it doesn't measure up to their imaginary standards. Yet, whether it's DSL, cable or fiber, a US ISP with a 15GB data cap is that rarest of all commodities. I've never had one--and good luck finding one in the US. Posts like yours don't garner much response in these intellectual rituals because you remind the participants of a very ugly truth they work hard to tune out: that in many areas of the world the extant ISPs provide far worse service than what is commonly available in the US. Comcast's data cap for its cable is 300GB per month; AT&T U-Verse is 250GB per month; AT&T DSL is 150GBs per month. I guess if you were dead-set on paying no more than $5-$10 a month for broadband you *might* be able to find an ISP in the US who would give you such a low cap if you asked nicely and did a little begging.

I've been on broadband since 1998; and on dial-up for several years before that. Dial-up sucked, royally, but it was all we had. If Cerf pines for that era of "competition" he can do it without me.... When you could ride the phone lines at speeds as slow as molasses, you could set-up an ISP for a minimum investment. It's a much different situation though when you have to lay your own cable and/or fiber: the bar to enter the market as a player suddenly becomes horrifically higher, and only those with deep pockets need apply. Good riddance to dial up, though! Caps in the dial-up days would have been practically meaningless since you could download so little because download speeds were capped incredibly low by the technology itself. Such competition as there was turned out to be completely fake, as I experienced several times, personally. Generally speaking, the smaller ISPs rent from the bigger ISPs and you only like the deals provided by the smaller guys if you've never gotten a good deal from one of the major ISPs. At that point you see you really weren't getting much of a deal at all. (When I stopped collecting them, at one point I had > 50 AOL & Earthlink CDs which were shipped to me without forewarning via the US snail mail. They did make pretty good drink coasters, but after awhile their conversational value finally withered...)

I'm no fan of competition that looks like competition but actually isn't--only those relatively ignorant about the technology (and there are too many of those people, unfortunately) would mistake faux, government created-out-of whole cloth markets for real markets with real competitive elements. It works out that way because the G-men generally don't know much if anything about free and competitive markets themselves, having been nurtured most of their adult lives in a culture that does not have to create wealth to sustain itself, but which instead merely takes wealth away from those who create it. It's just yet another pie-in-the-sky impractical viewpoint: that government is Oz and Knows All. Like, for instance, asking a Senator or House member who sits on a NASA appropriations committee to take an active hand in the design of an upcoming rocket-plane to replace the anachronistic space shuttle fleet. Might as well call Al Gore the father of the Internet, too, while you're talking pipe-dreams. (Parenthetically, I might mention, too, that Al Gore has just sold his TV station--a Global-Warming-Is-For-You-Today public-interest station to Al Jazeera! It doesn't get much funnier or more "transparent" than that!)

But if all of that doesn't grab you in terms of the runaway hypocrisy on the subject here in the US, then what I'm about to tell you next certainly ought to. Many of the very same people who decry the state of wired broadband in the US don't seem to mind being gouged mercilessly by their wireless ISPs--that is, the cell-phone wireless carriers & ISPs who are ostensibly regulated in the manner they would prefer! Those data plans make wired broadband in the US look like Nirvana--and caps? How about *5 (five) GBs* per month? How does that grab you? How would you like to be billed an extra $10+ a month, on top of the egregious, usurious fees the wireless ISPs already charge (think AT&T/iPhone, for instance, one of many), just because you happened to download 5.5GBs one month through your wireless ISP? If you go on a subsidized wireless cell-phone ISP plan and never access the Internet you *still* have to pay for the basic or unlimited Internet data plan, depending on the ISP. (Thankfully, you can avoid the charge completely by simply refusing to buy a smartphone...)

I find it nothing short of incredible how the state of the nation's wireless broadband services and prices can be overlooked while leveling such harsh criticisms against wired broadband in the US. There's no question at all but that in the US wired broadband is a far, far better value than wireless broadband is at the moment, and it's a whole heck of of a lot faster, too! Wired broadband caps are immeasurably friendlier. And of course, imo, nobody who uses wireless carrier/ISPs in the US and finds that deal palatable has any right at all to criticize wired broadband service in the US. Wireless carrier/ISP broadband is much, much worse on every count, imo.

So much is said about wired broadband "network neutrality" in the US that you might tend to think Internet users in the US are always trying to connect to sites they aren't "allowed" to access.... The truth is just the opposite. Since I hopped off of dial-up BBS's in the early 90's and moved first to AOL briefly and then to simply an Internet connection sans AOL, I' ve never had a problem connecting to a web site, so long as that site was still up and was a going concern when I attempted access. That experience spans several ISPs and physical locations in the US, and several different levels of dial-up and broadband tech.

So what's all the moaning and groaning about? If a person has no trouble stomaching his wireless broadband bill each month as racked up by his cell phone use--he ought to damn well be madly in love with the state of wired broadband in the US these days. Maybe it's just more Gore-ian logic at work. Sure sounds like it.

The "last mile" should be heavily controlled by government and treated like a utility. The line from your doorstep to the local CO should be a truely dump pipe. ISPs can setup shop in the COs and cross-connect to their intercity "big pipes" with which I have no problem being controlled by a private entity. However, it should still be regulated. This would allow for far easier competition for mom and pop to just setup shop in a few COs and then connect up to a bigger ISP. Bigger cities would probably need a few core COs from which city interconnects would flow and all the smaller local COs would hook into those.

That's how it was before deregulation in the early 2000s and everything more or less worked just fine with actual competition. However, eventually the ISPs with bigger budgets / better marketing ate up the small fry and now just coast on their fat reserves.

edit: So yes, the last mile should be "owned" by government. Internet is such a ubiqutious thing these days that every house should just be wired up by government and your local city / county / state taxes should pay for it.

No, NOT a boatload of laws and regulation that attempts in vain to corral and control the private self-centered monarchies and fiefdoms that we have allowed to dictate terms to the world.

At least Australia has seen the light and will have a new network owned by the people. The United States isn't so enlightened.

But for how long? Successive state and federal governments (usually Liberal) have sold off publicly owned resources to raise money in the past. I'm a supporter of the National Broadband Network, but I am concerned that it'll be sold off at some point by a short-sighted government to fill a budget deficit.

We saw it with the CBA, Telstra, various rail companies, most power utilities, most water utilities, etc etc etc. That every single case has led to worse effects for the public hasn't dimmed the enthusiasm of some politicians and thinktanks.

A good solution would be to separate the pipes from the internet providers...Like how the old phone lines work at the moment.

Don't know how it works in the US, but in Canada, the major Telcos own certain TV channels. You get ridiculous internet caps for home use (15 Gigs for a home internet connection is super low for a family) and throttled speeds during the day.

I would be all for their argument "Canada is too spread out so the cost of internet has to be higher than other countries", except that you DO NOT get throttled or capped if you stream content for the TV channels they own..... I hope this model does not get copied in the US.....

Actually it mostly the cap that hurt, often they give you a cap you can go through in 2 day, if you fully use the bandwidth available, luckily live in a town with a small ISP which just doesn't care about such machination, so got unlimited, while also at a price lower then other ISP, only thing is that about everyone else offer better speed, but with has much bandwidth has I use would most likely cost me at least 3 time has much with other ISP for the same speed, due to their insane price once over cap.

This county could get back on its feet and get out from under these greedy corporations if we just learned a thing our two from our history.

In the 30's - 50's we built the interstate system in the US and that helped us get out of the great depression and provided millions of jobs and a huge boom to our economy. We need to do the same thing with fiber network roll out.

We could put in a nation wide google fiber network and pay it off in 10 years with the money saved from our wasteful spending. We would be creating millions of jobs in all types of areas and providing a huge boost to our economy all the while giving the taxpayer exactly what they are asking for.

We could then lease out that network ( at a fixed fair cost) to who ever wants to provide internet to people and then use those profits to further upgrade and expand our public network.

No, NOT a boatload of laws and regulation that attempts in vain to corral and control the private self-centered monarchies and fiefdoms that we have allowed to dictate terms to the world.

At least Australia has seen the light and will have a new network owned by the people. The United States isn't so enlightened.

But for how long? Successive state and federal governments (usually Liberal) have sold off publicly owned resources to raise money in the past. I'm a supporter of the National Broadband Network, but I am concerned that it'll be sold off at some point by a short-sighted government to fill a budget deficit.

We saw it with the CBA, Telstra, various rail companies, most power utilities, most water utilities, etc etc etc. That every single case has led to worse effects for the public hasn't dimmed the enthusiasm of some politicians and thinktanks.

The government is not building it to provide network neutrality through pipes owned by the people, but to counter under-investment in infrastructure by the existing private sector mono/duopoly. Intending to sell it off at a profit is a fundamental part of the accounting chicanery that allows the government to keep the cost off the nation's books by treating it as an investment rather than an expense.

The man deserves a medal for telling it like it is. We need more competition, not less....then again, I wonder how many of us would fold like cards if Google Fiber were to show up at your doorstep tomorrow?

That's competition, isn't it? It's another entity being upset with what's happening, and deciding to set up service themselves.

Frequently, when suggesting improvement, it helps to assume reality. That reality is that the expenses involved in either expropriating or building infrastructure make this a dead end. Private initiative works well in these circumstances, and regulation works reasonably well for keeping it in check.

Clearly it doesn't. Some of the best internet in the country is the result of municipal projects.

This is why Im glad to have Utopia providing a fiber network for XMission (my ISP and Im PROUD) to connect me to the internet... available in certain, more intelligent regions of Utah. Now any other company wishing to lay their own fiber network is still just as able, but Utopia did ours as a co-operative infastructure and you have a choice of ISP's on the medium.

They even asked Comcast and Century Link if they wanted to be a provider on the lines, but I make the guess that Utopia signal consistency and customer service satisfaction requirements were something neither of those companies cared to meet. I could be wrong, but they declined the offer and then mounted campaigns to attack Utopia with TONS of misleading half-facts.

I can say that I have no other one thing in my life where Im happy if I end up needing to call in for ANYTHING!!! All other calls I make to servioce providers/technical support agents are something I dread and try everything I can not to call them. But calling my ISP is usually as fullfiling as taling with any of my close associates.

Utopia established their presence as a co-op infastructure gave each community independent control over how the fiber network is ran and operated within itself. This is AWESOME!

Could you imagine being able to go to a board meeting of executives at Comcast? You would most likely be arrested before getting to the executive secratary, to be honest. With Utopia, one attends the city council meetings to make motions concerning Utopia and Utopia access... right now, we are getting past some bad publicity and information given to our residents via private interest groups.

But yes! My internet is provided on a structure and model that this fine man details out. To be more free and independent and open to competitive business entrepenuers. If anyone in Utah has wanted to start their own ISP but hated that there was no 'open' medium to broadcast on; as twisted pair (telephone lines) has been monopolized since its beinging and so has cable, only difference is cable companies have been bought and resold for renaming to escape the eventual criticism of its technology. Now, in Utopia cities, new ISP's can be started, creating job growth and economic stimulus for each community. Isnt it about time for this approach?

The Utopia fiber network in Orem Utah has four ISP's to my knowledge. If Comcast wants to join, they would be welcome... but again, decline for some reason??? If anyone can get Google Fiber to come and lay their own network, they would be more than welcome. We didnt pass any laws prohibiting anyone else but Utopia creating a fiber network. Or better yet, they could help build up community economics and utilize the existing fiber medium and be a partipating Internet Service Provider.

If Google can beat my ISP's level of delivery and consistency, as well as knowledgeable, friendly customer service Im not dreading to call... Id consider switching and Iv been with my current ISP since Utopia's beginnings. I would recommend any other area to copy, or hire, Utopia... both as an infastructure and co-operative. Those two help protect the model from being monopolized and a private prfit engine, in Chattanoga (TN), they went ALL fiber and the were able to lower their ENTIRE city powerbills a whopping 5%!!! I can say that since I download 10 GB games on my console in less than 15-20 minutes, I have my devices on ONLY when Im gonna use them and they dont have to sit, turned on while they update, download, or upload backups. I click... its done before Im done reading my email for the day.

My ping time is so ridiculous, online gaming is better than offline!!!

Thank you creator of our internet for clarifying why we need more projects like Utopia Fiber Network, in order to stimulate and maintain an open enviroment for entrepenuers and create grwoth and stimulus to our community!!!

assuming we're some of the smartest people on this issue, we have to believe anything is possible.

when AT&T Monarchy was broken up by Judge Green way back in the day, our *entire* country benefited wildly. A dead industry - telecommunications, immediately embraced low-cost long distance - Sprint, MCI, and many others provided competition for the first time in long-distance service. I know, WTF is long-distance in 1984? made no sense it could exist.

This is precisely what ATT, Comcast, Verizon would love to return to. 1980 style price bullshitting.

I call it the only area where the major Telco innovate: making up Billing Ideas.. they have little basis in reality, they are simply 'innovative' because the extract more dollars for less service from the public. and *that* is innovative. Its no joke. Its what much of market and engineering in telco / cellco is all about.

This fundamental breakdown in American free enterprise and open competition has killed our leadership in networks. We still make some good comm tech, but have lost most of that innovation to foriegn, real innovators, why? Because they offer *benefits* and *features* for money, instead of bullshit stories of spectrum scarcity.

There's so much unused spectrum in the US, its nauseating to think Cellcos had the gaul to lie to Congress and the FCC about the looming spectrum crisis. Its a hall of shame top position.

What's needed is simple. The People, represented by our Government Nationalize the infrastructure, implement shared spectrum and shared national backbone usage - its infinitely more efficient than this privatized Monopoly controlled national resource.

its a National Security issue. Its a National Economic Issue. Clearly private business has damaged our nations position in telecommunications, and produced some billionaires.

Leave the infrastructure to the people - we've shown for decades we're better at it than private mega-businesses.

In a matter of 1-2 years, Internet 2, or 3 or 4 will be deployed. IP V6 would already be in place. Gigabit to every home could be in place in 2-3 years. A real revolution in telecommunications would take place, with massive investor celebration in handsets, mobile broadband, home gig-TVs (4k and more), 3D systems would make sense. Content provider would instantly have market.

Telemedicine would finally take off. Massive shared computing Cloud applications would actually take off as well. *every* segment of our telecom/cloud/mobile market would do better with a national backbone and shared last mile wireless national system.

Imagine if 1 handset operated on all the spectrum currently in the hands of *either* ATT, Sprint, Verizon, T-mobile, etc.etc Merging all that spectrum would be efficient.

Adding White Space finally to the last mile mix, would immediately avoid the insane amounts of money in legal positioning and market protecting current Cell/Tellcos are engaged in.

This is *so* obvious, it is nearly laughable. It *frees* innovation, investors, device makers, content creators, large screen markets, it *enables* everything.

and it *costs less*, there's no quadruplicated networks. There's only 2, a primary and backup.

let's get on with it, investors want it, end-users want it. regulators want it. its simple, efficient, and the right approach.

From the article:Already, he said, competition was decimated when the Internet moved from dial-up providers to cable companies and telcos.

It was reduced by 10%?

That doesn't sound too bad, it could be much worse.

Or has it been destroyed, rather than decimated?

I had to double-check this one in the dictionary because I had always thought "decimate" meant "to reduce to 10% of original value", but according to the dictionary definitions: 1. to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.2. to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.3. Obsolete. to take a tenth of or from.

So bizarrely enough, we're both right, though from the context of the quote it's obvious he meant the first definition.

In Soviet Russia Government has a Plan and regulates (not terribly effectively) only to limit my ability to view sites it doesn't like. Yet I have a choice of several ISPs (including one providing LTE access within my city and suburbs) and pay $15 for unlimited use of 20mbit/s FTTB.

I wonder how many laws to ensure "fair competition" and "affordable prices" should fail before people figure out that it only makes existing charlie foxtrot worse. Probably the right answer is "they won't", because it's so much easier to whine about market failures if you forget completely about existing regulation.

A good solution would be to separate the pipes from the internet providers...Like how the old phone lines work at the moment.

I said as much in the article announcing AT&T's objective: have the government (federal, state, whatever) manage the internet infrastructure as a utility, and allow ISPs to run access into the national infrastructure. It's the only way to keep competition healthy and active.

Also, it will make it easier to mandate infrastructure upgrades at regular intervals, instead of waiting for a corporate bloathog to heave itself off of its profit pile after it gets tired of hearing all the screaming from frustrated users.

The man deserves a medal for telling it like it is. We need more competition, not less....then again, I wonder how many of us would fold like cards if Google Fiber were to show up at your doorstep tomorrow?

Considering Google Fiber would be an introduction of competition, I'd jump on it immediately. It would then be up to other companies to win me back. Or fold, and then we re-visit the issue in 10 years when everyone is getting their info from Google pipes.

It's the same problem though. Probably zero choice of ISP on your Google Fiber line. You should have at least a couple decent choices (and a bunch of really terrible ones).

As I recall, in the golden age of dial up ISP competition, there were like 3 ISPs that weren't completely awful. I was pretty young, but I don't remember it being all that great...

Nothing like making a spurious claim without researching. It's *not* the same problem, because of the tiny little fact that Google Fiber is operated as an open-access network, unlike cable etc. Other ISPs can use their fiber.

Frequently, when suggesting improvement, it helps to assume reality. That reality is that the expenses involved in either expropriating or building infrastructure make this a dead end. Private initiative works well in these circumstances, and regulation works reasonably well for keeping it in check.

What serious expenses are involved in expropriating? Just follow Venezuela's lead with their oil industry, nationalize it. BAM, instant public ownership of the infrastructure! *dusts off hands*

... followed by the "expenses": complete stoppage of private investment in infrastructure. Why invest if they will just take it away from you? You don't think the drying up of investment and the inefficiency, corruption, and crumbling of infrastructure in Venezuela is an "expense"?

Hopefully you are just being sarcastic. Regulation and net neutrality, yes by all means. Expropriation, yikes no.

Frequently, when suggesting improvement, it helps to assume reality. That reality is that the expenses involved in either expropriating or building infrastructure make this a dead end. Private initiative works well in these circumstances, and regulation works reasonably well for keeping it in check.

What serious expenses are involved in expropriating? Just follow Venezuela's lead with their oil industry, nationalize it. BAM, instant public ownership of the infrastructure! *dusts off hands*

... followed by the "expenses": complete stoppage of private investment in infrastructure. Why invest if they will just take it away from you? You don't think the drying up of investment and the inefficiency, corruption, and crumbling of infrastructure in Venezuela is an "expense"?

Hopefully you are just being sarcastic. Regulation and net neutrality, yes by all means. Expropriation, yikes no.

I'm half joking. As little trust as I have for the government to properly manage the infrastructure, its infinetly more trust than I have for the incumbents with their natural monopolies to actually get their fat asses off their money piles and do the job. They've done a pretty good job demonstrating that when left to their own devices, pricing colusion and gouging/stifiling competition in verticle markets with data caps are the way they prefer to do business, rather than making serious investments in improving the networks and service.